Surely common sense should prevail. The golden rule these days is don't go into the muck but there is definitely scope to go into the muck and retrieve the cards. Everybody saw each players cards so there is no argument about what they had. As you said the deck is still intact so the flop will be the same as if they had just run it normally

I know we are told not to presume anything as a dealer but surely he/she could have asked the players if they are all in?

Surely common sense should prevail. The golden rule these days is don't go into the muck but there is definitely scope to go into the muck and retrieve the cards. Everybody saw each players cards so there is no argument about what they had. As you said the deck is still intact so the flop will be the same as if they had just run it normally

I know we are told not to presume anything as a dealer but surely he/she could have asked the players if they are all in?

Dealer needs more coffee :-) clearly they are all in and tabled face up so the fact that they got put with the muck by the dealer isn't an issue here. A showed and B showed turn them back up and put up the board. Oh and if I'm being a bit harsh tell the dealer to Focus rather than being on auto pilot

Surely common sense should prevail. The golden rule these days is don't go into the muck but there is definitely scope to go into the muck and retrieve the cards. Everybody saw each players cards so there is no argument about what they had. As you said the deck is still intact so the flop will be the same as if they had just run it normally

I know we are told not to presume anything as a dealer but surely he/she could have asked the players if they are all in?

It does in my opinion Nick. In the case you described I would feel it was obvious what the intention was (i.e. all the big denom chips went in from A and just one stack of small denoms left behind) but if the intention isn't crystal clear then the onus is on the player to say "call" or to push the remaining chips forward.

This is one of those situations where I feel the TD should put themselves in the player's shoes. If there's clearly no angle then I believe the TD should use common sense, if there's any chance that it's an angle then I think the TD should lean towards enforcing the rule to the letter of the law.

This situation happened at a table during a big event. Floor was called and Floor ruled that A did not go All in and by tossing his two cards to the dealer face up he folded. Players asked for second opinion so a different Floor arrived at the table and made the exact same rulling. The table moved to the next hand and that was the end of it.

Afterwards, the two Floor approached me and asked my opinion. I said I could see there point but that personally, I would have tried to re-construct the pot and give the players back their cards so we can run the board.

I've since given this a lot of thought and I now don't feel that what they did was a "bad" rulling. They are technically correct... A did not push all his chips forward, he did not say All in so he has made his intention unclear. In any situation that is unclear we rule to the lowest option rather than the highest. Dealers are instructed to pull in mucked cards straight away to avoid complicated situations after a player tosses cards forward. So, the Dealer did the correct thing here.

I disagree with ever asking a player what his intention was in any situation... by the time you ask that question the player has received information/reaction from opponent... We don't get too caught up on what the Players "intention" was... we ask what did the Player "do?" From there we make a decision.

At first I disagreed with the original rulling but now I'm not so sure. If we instantly take take this situation as an All in and call then A can object and say No, I'm not all in, I still have chips. In that case do we say Sorry... you must go all in? I don't think we do. So, if that doubt is there then this can't be taken automatically as an All in and call.

My first reaction was that it was a bad rulling and the pot should have been reconstructed but now I feel it was "technically correct." I feel if the player had 10K behind that we wouldn't all jump to calling this an All in and call so where is the line?... 3K, 4K, 5K ?

Isn't it strange how whenever these problems arise, be it call or mucked or bet size or whatever there's always a difference of opinion on how they should be ruled and I think that that's the point you cant make hard and fast rules that always apply in all cases. Here if Nick had been the TD called he may well have run the board, I know I would but its very unusual for both players to have shown there cards so this may not crop up again.

Playing the IPO Dublin last year blinds 200/400 raised pre to 1200 post a player throws in a 5k chip saying 4 the dealer states 400, and all hell breaks loose in the end the TD explains that because the blind was 400 and the player had said 4 that he was obliged to take it as 400, I hated the ruling but I get that the guidelines say to take the smaller option so that's fine.

Without wanting to fallout with every dealer in the country I think if dealers were trained to a higher level regarding the Rules and Interpretations adopted by the TD for the Event then a lot of these things could be avoided at source eg. player turns his cards face up after being re-raised where he has little or no chips behind, Dealer says " Call or Fold " players answers and the game goes on in good order. with that needs to come a greater level of trust from the Floor in the Dealers abilities while still giving all stake holders the right to call for a ruling.

Playing the IPO Dublin last year blinds 200/400 raised pre to 1200 post a player throws in a 5k chip saying 4 the dealer states 400, and all hell breaks loose in the end the TD explains that because the blind was 400 and the player had said 4 that he was obliged to take it as 400, I hated the ruling but I get that the guidelines say to take the smaller option so that's fine.

how could he have meant 400 if there was a raise to 1200 before he acted?

how could he have meant 400 if there was a raise to 1200 before he acted?

It wasn't before he acted, it was raised pre flop and checked to him post, but he clearly did not intend the bet to be 400 , but the international best practise for TDs says that if a player dose not state the amount clearly then the lesser possible figure will be taken. Again my point is that if the dealer just says "hundred or thousand " nothing else ( no big chat about intent or anything) the player answers thousand and we go on.

i'm reading between the lines that sb had no kind of hand and was making a move cause if he had shown AA KK QQ AK or something as strong the dealer wouldn't have mucked their hand ?

But even with 72 off he's put in 30k out of 32k surely, but yes maybe, really, no, he cant be folding, can he, na inanyways if the dealer just says " call or fold? " then we know for sure, I think, don't we !!!!!

A tricky ruling and both potential rulings seems reasonable, but, as is so often the case, a situation that could have been easily avoided if player A just did things properly. I am not a dealer, but if I were, I would probably say that it's not for a dealer to know a player has raised 95% of his stack, and so is 'obviously' calling the all-in, nor is it a dealer's job to assume this is obvious -as I'm sure we've all seen ridiculous raise-folds in our time!

...either act verbally, or clearly , especially if your tournament life is on the line.